Closing arguments given in same-sex marriage trial

From left, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse with DeBoer’s attorney Dana Nessel enter Federal Court in Detroit, Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2014 before a trial that could overturn Michigan’s ban on gay marriage. Gay couples poised for a favorable ruling last fall had lined up for licenses at county offices across Michigan, only to be stunned when U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman said he wanted to hear testimony from experts. The case began in 2012 when nurses Rowse, 49, and DeBoer, 42, of Hazel Park sued to try to upset a Michigan law that bars them from adopting each other’s children. But the case became even more significant when Friedman invited them to add the same-sex marriage ban to their lawsuit. They argue that Michigan’s constitutional amendment, approved by voters in 2004, violates the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, which forbids states from treating people differently under the law. (AP Photo/Detroit News, Daniel Mears)

From left, Jayne Rowse and April DeBoer with their children Ryanne, Nolan, and Jacob, pictured in 2013 in their Hazel Park home.(Oakland Press Photo:Vaughn Gurganian)

Detroit >> A federal judge said Friday that he will need more than a week to make a decision in a Hazel Park couple’s lawsuit regarding Michigan’s gay marriage ban.

Following closing arguments in the trial Friday, U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman said he has “a lot of reading to do” and hopes to e-file his decision “the week after next.”

There were three sides to the story during closing arguments. Kenneth Mogill gave his argument for the couple, April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse. For the defendants, Assistant Attorney General Kristin Heyse spoke her piece for the state and Michael Pitt represented Oakland County Clerk Lisa Brown, who is listed as a defendant in the case but believes gay marriage should be legal in Michigan.

“(Brown’s) oath of office does not permit her to discriminate against any couple,” Pitt said.

Advertisement

“She is ready now to carry out this duty and she will begin handing out marriage licenses (to gay couples) at the moment she is allowed to do so by law.”

Pitt said that the state’s theory could also mean “a post-menopausal woman or an infertile man does not have a fundamental right to marry because he or she does not have the ability to procreate.”

A large factor in the case is the Michigan Marriage Amendment, approved by voters in 2004, which banned same sex marriage in the state.

“The Michigan Marriage Amendment perpetuates inequality by holding that the families and relationships of same sex couples are not now, nor will they ever be, worthy of recognition. ... This state-sanctioned humiliation must end, and it must end now.”

Pitt urged Friedman to issue an injunction against the enforcement of the act and to make it clear that all 83 clerks in Michigan are required to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.

Heyse said the case is a rational one, surrounded with emotion, based on “one simple question: Is there any reasonable basis that a single voter might have decided that marriage is between a man and a woman? Could reasonable people disagree on this issue? If they could, this court must rule (in favor of the state).”

Heyse said having a mother and a father is important for children.

“It is rational to believe that it is a good thing for a child to have both a mom and a dad,” she said.

“It is rational to believe that society should promote that ideal. At the very least, it’s rational to proceed with caution ... especially when the science in this area is so unsettled.”

The decision should be left to the voters, Heyse said.

“Mothers and fathers are not interchangeable,” she said.

“Laws do shape our behavior, and the goal of defining marriage as between one woman and one man is to encourage certain ideals.”

Heyse defended the witnesses that the state called during trial.

“This case is not about their religious views — it’s about science and data (and) what’s best for children,” she said.

“Right now it’s just too early to know the effects redefining marriage will have and that’s why voters acted rationally (and voted to ban gay marriage).”

If Friedman rules in favor of DeBoer and Rowse, Heyse requested a stay to prevent gay marriage licenses from immediately being issued.

“If reasonable people could disagree, then the court must uphold the Michigan Marriage Amendment,” she said in closing.

Mogill was then offered a rebuttal as the final word in the hearing.

“Nothing that Ms. Heyse has said changes the law or refutes our arguments,” he said. “Therefore, there is no need for rebuttal.”

To begin the hearing, Mogill said “The promise of equality is the promise of America. ... For gay Americans ... that promise has not been kept.”

If parenting competency were the sole issue regarding whether people can get married, the right to be married “would be limited to wealthy, highly-educated, suburban Asian Americans, and that, of course, is not the law, nor could it be,” Mogill said, adding that the institution of marriage as it stands today has evolved and is gender neutral.

“Equality before the law does not yet exist. For same sex couples like April and Jayne, the door is barred for entry to ... one of the most cherished institutions — marriage — because they loved the wrong kind of person,” he said.

“No other group in society is required to establish its parenting competency in order to marry, and it is constitutionally discriminatory to impose such a burden on gay and lesbian individuals.”

Mogill described the state’s witnesses as two economists, a family studies researcher and an “utterly discredited” sociologist.

“(The state’s) witnesses are part of a fringe that is fighting desperately for inequality,” he said.

“They are a desperate fringe.”

The state wants to treat gay marriage as a social science experiment, Mogill said.

“Life is not an experiment, it’s a reality. This case is not about experimental this or that, it’s about real people’s lives. Lesbian and gay couples exist and the question of whether they are entitled to the same rights as opposite sex families and their children goes much deeper than any social science experiment.”